I will begin by stating some facts about Air Travel compared to Car Travel

1. In one year, the odds of you getting in a car accident is 1 in 18,585. The odds of you getting into an aircraft accident are 354,319.

2. In a lifetime, the odds of you getting into a car accident is are 1 in 242. The odds of you getting into a plane accident are 1 in 4,608

3. USA's 2008 Traffic Safety Facts Data boils down the millions of accidents and other statistics to 1.27 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

4. Preliminary statistics for 2008 show only 20 accidents for U.S. air carriers operating scheduled service. This works out to nearly zero accidents per million flying miles. No one died, and only five people were seriously injured.

In conclusion, driving is absolutely more dangerous. Even if it doesn't lead to extreme injury, any "fender-bender" means money coming out of you wallet. With more than 5 million accidents compared to 20 accidents in flying a year, air travel blows car travel out of the water.

No plagiarism used here. I used word for word information when stating the fact #4 so there wouldn't be any confusion with my wording. My conclusion was not plagiarized at all. How could you possibly say i am plagiarizing?

The sources I used for that round (I forgot to put them in 2nd round):

Plagiarism is copy-paste from a source without citing it, which is what my opponent did in Round 2. He copy-pasted without referencing to the original source. Just because he then cited the sources in Round 3 does not mean that my claim that he plagiarized was wrong. He corrected it after I made my claim.

However, I must cut the round short because I have very little time at my disposal. Thank you for your understanding. Now, if you compare the articles on Wikipedia regarding air safety and automobile safety, you will see that lists of accidental factors are quite different. Which one is worse? Let us compare:

However, if you look at similar descriptions of accidental factors for the car, you will realize that the car has lesser risks of being involved in an accident than a plane, not speaking by statistics, but by accidental factors. The plane has more chances of being hit by lightning and crashing than a car has. Even if it is hit by lightning and stops working, it can make its passengers in more safe hands than the plane can. However, we should also look at statistics.

Now, I entirely agree that on average, more people die while driving a car than by flying in a plane, but this is most probably due to the fact that there are far more cars than planes, and many more people drive than fly in a plane. That is why it is important to look at how many people die per billion journeys, not kilometers. If we had as many private jets or passenger planes as we have cars, there is no reason to think that cars would not be safer than the planes. We would see many crashes. Thank you.

Because I am debating him, not another source. I am obliged to respond to what he writes from with his own words, not of other sources.

"And you never did, you realize this, correct?"

Yes, which I told you already, thank you. He plagiarized in Round 2, no need for me to respond. He cited sources in Round 3, and I came with my arguments. If I came with rebuttals and arguments, I would not have enough space.

"You never responded to his side of the debate."

It was not his.

"You never responded to his side of the debate."

Quit pretending to be right when you're clearly wrong.

"You lost this debate because you introduced your arguments in round three and failed to refute anything your opponent said."

I have no need of responding to plagiarism. He copy-pasted, and if that is "his side," then maybe you should think about it for a few more minutes.

"You didn't need to introduce your own arguments."

Yes I did. I do not need to waste time on plagiarize, and I pointed out his error. In fact, when someone plagiarizes, he automatically loses the entire debate, no matter of what. See my debate about NASCAR and how my opponent plagiarized, so I got all the votes automatically, even from some who admitted that his arguments were stronger.

"All you needed to do was refute your opponent's."

All he needed to do was to come with his own arguments. He did not. I had 3,000 characters to make my case, and I spent it on writing arguments instead of rebutting. Blame him.

"You could have used all 6,000 characters of rounds two and three to do this. You didn't."

No, neither was I obliged to. Plagiarized arguments are usually a waste of my time.

/// The fact that he plagiarized means that I am "not" obliged to respond. ///

Why not?

And you never did, you realize this, correct? You never responded to his side of the debate. Quit whining and grow a pair. You lost this debate because you introduced your arguments in round three and failed to refute anything your opponent said. You didn't need to introduce your own arguments. All you needed to do was refute your opponent's. You could have used all 6,000 characters of rounds two and three to do this. You didn't.

The fact that he plagiarized means that I am "not" obliged to respond. He loses conduct immediately. If I presented my arguments, he could have refuted mine, and I would then have had to refute his plagiarized arguments (since he cited the source "after"), and then also the rebuttals he would have present in Round. However, the character space was only of 3,000 characters, which would clearly put me in a bad position and I would still lack arguments. Therefore, he is the one who had a poor conduct here, and it is his fault that I did not respond. There are good reasons why I responded in Round 3.

By introducing your arguments in round 3. There's also the fact that you didn't respond to any of his information. All you did was introduce your own, which could have been done earlier and would have made you the victor in my eyes.

And why do I lose conduct for anything? There is absolutely no need to respond to plagiarism in any case. It is the third time that someone attempts to plagiarize on my debates, and it is a waste of time responding to it. The reason why I responded in Round 3 was because he cited the sources. If anything, I get the conduct vote, not he.

He cited his information in round two, and you lost conduct for not introducing your arguments until round 3. Even if you didn't want to respond to "plagiarized" arguments, you could have introduced your own earlier.

"RFD:
Conduct: Pro, Con did not provide any arguments and failed to respond to Pro's statements.
Sp/GR: Tie, I didn't notice enough to warrant giving this point to one debater or the other
Arguments: Pro, Con had none. Arguments introduced in the third round are invalid.
Sources: Tie"

He plagiarized. I do not need to waste time on plagiarized arguments, thank you very much.